If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Cubs have a 3.92 ERA for their starters per fangraphs. Brewers have 4.73. So there's a fairly substantial difference there.

While this is true, I'm speaking of our current rotation. Chase Anderson and Gio were not initially part of the rotation whereas Corbin Burnes and Freddy Peralta were. That slants the numbers negatively towards the Brewers.

Also Chacin by himself has awful numbers that really destroys the Brewers starting ERA. Cubs don't have a starter with an ERA around 6.

I guess I disagree with the RB comparison for a few reasons. One, I think the nfl figured out that a great OL can make a mediocre RB more productive as opposed to a great RB making up for a mediocre OL. So if that was the case, RP would be the OL in this scenario which would drive the cost of RP up quite substantially.

The other reason I disagree is because I'm not sure the nfl has for sure said you don't need a really good RB. I think what the league has said is more that RB is arguably the most ready position out of college and RBs have a short shelf life. So a good bet is to replace them after their rookie deal. So that speaks to consistency to me. And in this case, RP consistency year over year isn't there. Outside the relief ace types, guys numbers swing pretty wildly. I'd say SP has more long term consistency than RP.

If anything, I can see teams try to employ more of a rays style approach, with or without the opener. Even though he's hurt, they have a legit ace in snell. Then they have a guy like Morton who's a really good starter, even if he ends up missing a few starts per year. Then they muddle together a rotation by leaning in the bullpen more with this other starters. I think that's an okay strategy, especially for a small to mid market team. But you need 2 high end pitchers. And then, you can hope one or more of the other 3 over performs, but having one or two high level guys in paramount in my mind.

You're correct with your analogy. RP is similar to an O-line. My basic sentiment isn't that having elite relief pitching replaces elite starting pitching. My sentiment is that there is more than one way to build a roster. The Brewers need to be smart financially so they're going to attempt to get the maximum ability for the money they have, for them that involves more relief and less starting pitching.

And you are correct, this will and has driven up the cost of relief pitching. Eventually I'd assume that enough teams will spend enough on relief that starting pitching will become a bargain. Relief will be even more valuable if they institute a 3 batter minimum and the specialist goes away.

Its all about smart spending. Some teams can't afford an All-Star (lets say first basemen) so they institute a platoon utilizing two players and play the matchups.

I never got to write about our trade deadline deals. I was super disappointed that we really didn't add anyone who at least on paper will make us better. Obviously we got more depth and some fresher arms in the bullpen but non of those guys will likely be difference makers this year.

Agi for Faria- C - I was disappointed that Faria was the best we could have done for Agi. With Agi not performing and not having options that this was likely inevitable. I just thought we could have gotten a player with a little higher ceiling. I don't see Faria as much more than a 4/5 starter or average middle reliever.

Dubon for Pomeranz and Black - D - I was probably most disappointed in this move, I don't get why we didn't give Dubon a week or 2 of consistent starts last month when Arcia was in the middle of his slump and Saladino played instead. As for a prospect of Dubons quality we could have done much better than Pomeranz. Ray Black is the only reason I don't give this an F, but come on he is 29 and only has thrown 20 some big league innings.

Jordan Lyles for Cody Ponce (and essentially Marcos Diplan)- C - I probably would have given this a B+ or A- but we had to let Diplan go for basically nothing to make room on the 40 man. Lyles has been good and is making this look better than I would have guess when it went down.

Collateral damage- Diplan, Barnes, Hart, Wilson (maybe)
While non of these guys were going to be huge pieces we did basically have to let them go to make room for the new arrivals.

Couple of points. Diplan was probably gone no matter what. Even if it wasn't this year, then likely next year. And he's running gout of options already too. He was added to the 40 man too early and it was inevitable he would be a DFA guy at some point.

I don't think dubon is that big of prospect. I think prospect sites had him highish because he's kind of safe, but I don't think he's viewed too highly. Calling up saladino was evidence of that.

I had no problem with any deal on its own. To me, it was the combination that was kind of head scratching. If anything, the Aggy deal was my least favorite because I thought he had more value. Either that or im under rating Faria, which is possible too.

Couple of points. Diplan was probably gone no matter what. Even if it wasn't this year, then likely next year. And he's running gout of options already too. He was added to the 40 man too early and it was inevitable he would be a DFA guy at some point.

I don't think dubon is that big of prospect. I think prospect sites had him highish because he's kind of safe, but I don't think he's viewed too highly. Calling up saladino was evidence of that.

I had no problem with any deal on its own. To me, it was the combination that was kind of head scratching. If anything, the Aggy deal was my least favorite because I thought he had more value. Either that or im under rating Faria, which is possible too.

Yeah I wasn't a big fan of the deals either other than Lyles as it was necessary to get the deal done with all the rotation injuries and didn't give up anything really as I don't think Ponce or Diplan will ever do anything of note in the bigs.

The Aggy deal I would have rather moved Thames I guess. Aggy was on the upswing and Thames in his swoon. Also have option to put Shaw at 1B vs RHP and aggy vs LHP so don't really get worse options wise. Faria I don't mind. I think he could be a rotation piece. He had a nice season couple years ago for Rays and career ERA in low 4s vs. AL East loaded offenses.

The Dubon deal I agree. I don't know he's super valuable but certainly on the outside must have value to be a top-3 prospect for Brewers which is probably in the 150 overall range. Would think could package him with say Ray or get something Better than Pomeranz who has basically never made a rotation without getting yanked except 1 year in Boston and a 29 yo reliever. The A's traded their 8th prospect for Roark. Would think could have gotten a starter or something. I do tjhink Pomeranz is in best position with Brewers as a piggy-back guy or 3-inning type once through the order. Dubon I think was held in AAA because the Brewers knew they were going to deal him and didn't want him to sink value by going 2 for 20 or something. He is older than Arcia so I don't think he is an eliute prospect or anything and probably a utility type but still think a team probably would give up more than Pomeranz and a 29 yo reliever for him...

I know places like mlb had him as our #3 prospect, but I don't think that's how teams view him. First off, I've seen farm rankings that have the brewers at or near the bottom. So our number 3 is probably much lower in most farms to start. But dubon doesn't have much upside. He isn't an elite defender. He's okay, especially at short. He doesn't walk much and he doesn't hit for power. Those guys aren't valuable. Teams would much rather take a chance on upside. I can't see dubon being much over a 2 war player in any season. Those guys are findable in free agency almost every year. No one is giving up much value for that. They'd rather take a wild card who has upside.

And I always disagree with the id rather trade thames than Aggy sentiment simply because theres alot that goes into a trade. Teams don't give up a ton for rentals. Thames was a rental. There weren't a ton of teams in the market for a 1B. One of the few teams that was, specifically wanted a righty. It's also a cheap team who wants cheap control. Thames would have had virtually no real trade interest. Aggy, while I think the return may have been lite, ended up fetching a controllable major league arm. That's not nothing. And realistically, the full season difference between thames and Aggy production has historically been pretty close. So it's sort of a no brainer to trade the guy that gets more back.

Additionally, it would appear we think Grisham is the future. If the plan is to play him more, Braun may have to move to first on a more regular basis, which covers the right handed side of the platoon next year.

You're correct with your analogy. RP is similar to an O-line. My basic sentiment isn't that having elite relief pitching replaces elite starting pitching. My sentiment is that there is more than one way to build a roster. The Brewers need to be smart financially so they're going to attempt to get the maximum ability for the money they have, for them that involves more relief and less starting pitching.

And you are correct, this will and has driven up the cost of relief pitching. Eventually I'd assume that enough teams will spend enough on relief that starting pitching will become a bargain. Relief will be even more valuable if they institute a 3 batter minimum and the specialist goes away.

Its all about smart spending. Some teams can't afford an All-Star (lets say first basemen) so they institute a platoon utilizing two players and play the matchups.

Were probably getting too far away from the discussion with the analogy, because I wouldnt say RP is the OL in that scenario but whatever.

To me your tactic works if RP performance were predictable. But it really isn't. And the semi predictable relief pitching isn't cheap. Closers are still super expensive on the free agent market.

At the end of the day, for the average team, 55-60% of your innings will come from your starters, which is 5 guys. The remaining 40-45% comes from your RP, which is 7-8 guys. That's why the value lives with starters. That's why, to me, the starters are the OL in the scenario. They carry the bulk of the load. Skimping on that is risky because you need to consistently get the the 5th or later with the lead or at least close to the lead to leverage an elite bullpen.

Were probably getting too far away from the discussion with the analogy, because I wouldnt say RP is the OL in that scenario but whatever.

To me your tactic works if RP performance were predictable. But it really isn't. And the semi predictable relief pitching isn't cheap. Closers are still super expensive on the free agent market.

At the end of the day, for the average team, 55-60% of your innings will come from your starters, which is 5 guys. The remaining 40-45% comes from your RP, which is 7-8 guys. That's why the value lives with starters. That's why, to me, the starters are the OL in the scenario. They carry the bulk of the load. Skimping on that is risky because you need to consistently get the the 5th or later with the lead or at least close to the lead to leverage an elite bullpen.

You're not wrong, but my point is the Brewers strategy is to take mediocre starting pitching and limit them to 5-6 innings which will give them peak performance. They rely on the bullpen more because the numbers say that the third time through the order pitchers fall off, so they like to avoid that at all costs.

And while I agree relief is volatile, I would expect just as many pitchers to exceed expectations and those that fall short. Obviously that hasn't happened for the Brewers this year which is why the bullpen has struggled so much.

At the end of the day, I think a combination of our offense being middle of the pack (when they were projected to be near the top) and our bullpen being near the middle of the pack (when they were projected to be elite) is the problem. Starting pitching has done or even exceeded what expectations were. But if you know you're going to be middle/back of the league in starting pitching your offense needs to come through, and it flat out hasn't done that consistently enough.

I would agree with that. I guess to me it was more that I had an issue with the strategy to start. The bullpen struggles and the offense struggles were all relatively within a realistic outcome. And that to me is where the issue lies.

I agree that you can expect some to over achieve and some to underachieve. But as a whole, I think the bullpen performance has been somewhat closer to realistic than what we think. We dont have any massive over achievers and we did have a few big underachievers. But our main bullpen guys have mostly been relatively close to an expected result.

Junior Guerra is just basically at his career era. And given his FIP and career FIP, theres an arguement he over achieving.

Matt Albers is below his career era, but definitely in the range of expected outcomes for him.

Claudio is underperforming, but hes less than a run off his career mark. I don't think his performance is wildly under what we'd expect.

Hader is probably under performing, but hes still sub 3 era for now. And expecting him to consistently be sub 2.5 is probably unfair.

Jeffress is underperforming for sure. But the expectation for him realistically is probably mid 3s. So he's off by a run.

The rest of been a mix bag. You'd like to see Barnes or Williams better than they were. Peralta has been better than expected as a reliever. Burnes was bad as both starter and releiver. Houser has been decent out of the pen.

So i guess as a whole, I don't see our pen as a major under performance. I would agree that we should be better out of the pen, but I don't think it's like a full run on the era or anything. According to fangraphs, out ERA for our releivers is 4.6 and our FIP is more like 4.3. That seema pretty fair. 4.6 puts us at 17. 4.3 would put us at 11. That seems fair and that definitely gives us a few games back, but 4.6 really isn't a huge under performance for me. And that's why I was disappointed with our starting pitching approach this offseason.

But once again, I don't believe you can strictly look at team ERA numbers because we use so much long relief is games we're trailing. The issue to me isn't the bullpen performance as a whole, but rather that we don't have 3 guys who are somewhat reliable.

Claudio is relatively reliable but situational. Albers has been our best reliever of the second half and a guy I trust. Hader has been terrible since the All-Star break and has far underachieved IMO. Jeffress has been nearly unplayable, while I didn't expect him to be dominant I expect above average. And lastly, Knebel going down was a big blow because that is a guy I'd expect to be a 3.00 ERA or lower player.

In order for this team to work, we need 2-3 relievers that are above average because when we have a lead after 7 we need to win those games 90% of the time. We're not doing that at the moment. I do not think have 3 relievers perform at a sub 3.00 ERA for the season is an unrealistic expectation.

It's not unrealistic, but it also means you likely have close to a top 10 bullpen. As far as I can tell, if we limit the data set to guys who have throw at least 20 innings, 7 of the 30 teams have 3 or more sub 3 pitchers. 1 of those teams is the Rays, who I hesitate to count because of their use of the opener. If anything, it might be more fair to say 6 of 29 teams have at least 3 of those guys.

So no, it isn't unrealistic to expect that, but it's also not super realistic to consistently get that as well.

Prior year, even when you expand the innings a little, it looks like 11 teams met the criteria for a full season. So that's getting closer to half. But it's still not at the point where it's a major happening. One of the big things that saved our pen last year is jeffress went 1.29. That's wildly unsustainable. We subsequently had a ridiculously good record in 1 run games. Historically speaking, that's hard to maintain as well.

Like I said, we probably are somewhat close to agreeing and are arguing more semantics at this point, but to me thats harder to maintain than you are giving credit. Currently we have 2 guys sub 3 as releivers, one of which is houser, who's reliever era is sub 2. And of the teams who have 3 or more guys sub 3, some of them have that type of situation going on as well. So to me, it really isn't that common to say we are going to have our 3 main releivers and they all should be sub 3.

I agree. This is what we do. We both get stuck on one little point when we mostly agree with the entire argument. Honestly I enjoy it even if we don't make much progress.

Last point I'm going to make as a rebuttal, you are basically saying that only the top third of the league has relievers like I'm asking for. But without looking it up I'm assuming basically that entire top third are playoff contenders, whereas I'd be basically the entire bottom third are near last in the standings.

This is my point, maybe I'm asking for too much but if I am then I think us expecting the Brewers to consistently compete is unrealistic. We went to the NLDS last season and are a playoff contender this season. We should be better than an average team in at least 2/3 aspects of the game, and if we're not then we aren't good enough to win anything.

Surpsingly, it's actually always the case. The White Sox are one of the teams with 3 guys and so are the Giants, who are kinda in contention-ish. So is say 4 of the 6 non rays teams are in contention.

My guess is if you did something similar with starters, you'd get the same thing. Obviously you wouldn't use 3 for starters, but you could use a slightly higher number and it would be a similar story.

To me, and I just summed it quickly in excel, so I didn't study the names, but I'd be more interested in looking and the who's who on the list. How many guys are legit guys you can expect that from semi consistently and how many are unexpected people? Because thats interesting to me. You can't bank on consistently finding those unexpected guys. How many of the teams intentionally built bullpens with consistent 3 era guys. That would interest me.

Well, here we go...most important stretch of the season for the Brewers....playing road games vs. STL, WAS who both currently hold a WC spot. Brewers go 4-2 and I think they stay in this thing until the end. But I could see this being a horror show road trip as well. The Brewers offense is so inept with guys in scoring position...Cain who was phenomenal last year struggles to even make solid contact now...have to wonder if this is just a blip and a down year or if this is who he is the rest of his career offensively.

I think Cain is probably in decline, but this year is probably an aberration. He's been banged up this year and that's probably not helping. And baseball has a way of compounding things. He's struggling to make good contact so he's pressing more. Last year he was patient and battled. This year, he's swinging earlier and really not taking good ABs. I think he has to get back to that a little.

Brewers flat out need to be better at putting the ball in play. Just hitting homeruns or striking out isn't good enough. The offense doesn't produce nearly enough when we're not hitting homeruns.

Side track thought, but I think there should be some factor of errors created on offense as a factor of offensive production. I was thinking about this with Braun. He's been on base several times due to catchers interference, and while its not a hit it is something that he's able to do that others aren't. Then I was thinking about fast players or players that hustle more or even just put the ball in play a lot. Those players should all create errors at a higher rate than those that don't which makes it IMO a factor of skill more so than a factor of luck.